- Escobar: Who Profits From The End Of The Mid-Range Nuclear Treaty?
Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,
The US move to shelve the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty could accelerate the demise of the whole post-WWII Western alliance, and herald a bad remix of the 1930s…
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved its Doomsday Clock to only 2 minutes to midnight. It might be tempting to turn this into a mere squabble about arrows and olives if this wasn’t such a terrifying scenario.
US president Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, secretary-general of the USSR, signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987.
The Arms Control Association was extremely pleased.
“The treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and utilize extensive on-site inspections for verification.”
Three decades later, the Trump administration wants to unilaterally pull out of the INF Treaty.
Earlier this week President Trump sent his national security adviser John Bolton to officially break the news to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
As they were discussing extremely serious issues such as implications of a dissolving INF Treaty, the perpetuation of anti-Russia sanctions, the risk of not extending a new START Treaty and the deployment, in Putin’s words, of “some elements of the missile shield in outer space”, the Russian President got into, well, arrows and olives:
“As I recall, there is a bald eagle pictured on the US coat of arms: it holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other as a symbol of peaceful policy: a branch with 13 olives. My question: has your eagle already eaten all the olives leaving only the arrows?”
Bolton’s response: “I didn’t bring any olives.”
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with US National Security Adviser John Bolton before their meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on 23 Oct 2018. Photo: Russian Foreign Press Office / Anadolu Agency / AFP
A ‘new strategic reality’?
By now it’s clear the Trump administration’s rationale for pulling out of the INF Treaty is due, in Bolton’s words, to “a new strategic reality”. The INF is being dismissed as a “bilateral treaty in a multipolar ballistic missile world”, which does not take into consideration the missile capabilities of China, Iran and North Korea.
But there is a slight problem. The INF Treaty limits missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,000 km. China, Iran and North Korea simply cannot pose a “threat” to the United States by deploying such missiles. The INF is all about the European theater of war.
So, it’s no wonder the reaction in Brussels and major European capitals has been of barely disguised horror.
EU diplomats have told Asia Times the US decision was a “shock”, and “the last straw for the EU as it jeopardizes our very existence, subjecting us to nuclear destruction by short-range missiles”, which would never be able to reach the US heartland.
The “China” reason – that Russia is selling Beijing advanced missile technology – simply does not cut it in Europe, as the absolute priority is European security. EU diplomats are establishing a parallel to the possibility – which was more than real last year – that Washington could nuclear-bomb North Korea unilaterally. South Korea and Japan, in that case, would be nuclear “collateral damage”. The same might happen to Europe in the event of a US-Russia nuclear shoot-out.
It goes without saying that shelving the INF could even accelerate the demise of the whole post-WWII Western alliance, heralding a remix of the 1930s with a vengeance.
And the clock keeps ticking
Reports that should be critically examined in detail assert that US superiority over China’s military power is rapidly shrinking. Yet China is not much of a military technology powerhouse compared to Russia and its state of the art hypersonic missiles.
NATO may be relatively strong on the missile front – but it still wouldn’t be able to compete with Russia in a potential battle in Europe.
The supreme danger, in Doomsday Clock terms, is the obsession by certain US neocon factions that Washington could prevail in a “limited”, localized, tactical nuclear war against Russia.
That’s the whole rationale behind extending US first-strike capability as close as possible to the Russian western borderlands.
Russian analysts stress that Moscow is already – “unofficially” – perfecting what would be their own first-strike capability in these borderlands. The mere hint of NATO attempting to start a countdown in Poland, the Baltics or the Black Sea may be enough to encourage Russia to strike.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov starkly refuted Trump and Bolton’s claims that Russia was violating the INF Treaty: “As far as we understood, the US side has made a decision, and it will launch formal procedures for withdrawing from this treaty in the near future.”
As for Russia’s resolve, everything one needs to know is part of Putin’s detailed intervention at the Valdai Economic Forum. Essentially, Putin did not offer any breaking news – but a stark reminder that Moscow will strike back at any provocation configured as a threat to the future of Russia.
Russians, in this case, would “die like martyrs” and the response to an attack would be so swift and brutal that the attackers would “die like dogs”.
The harsh language may not be exactly diplomatic. What it does is reflect plenty of exasperation towards the US conservatives who peddle the absurd notion of a “limited” nuclear war.
The harsh language also reflects a certainty that whatever the degree of escalation envisaged by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, that won’t be enough to neutralize Russian hypersonic missiles.
So, it’s no wonder that EU diplomats, trying to ease their discomfort, recognize that this, in the end, is all about the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and the necessity of keeping the massive US military-industrial-surveillance complex running.
Even as the clock keeps ticking closer to midnight.
- Visualizing A Century Of New York City's Evolving Skyline
Over New York City’s storied history, the skyline has evolved constantly.
Smoke stacks and cathedral spires were gradually eclipsed by the stately office towers of “Newspaper Row”, and, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley writes, iconic skyscrapers like the Chrysler Building soon shared the skyline with monolithic towers in the international style.
Today’s infographic comes to us from Liberty Cruise NYC and it charts this evolution over the last century, while highlighting just how dramatically the cityscape is set to change by 2020.
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist
THE EARLY HISTORY OF SKYSCRAPERS
For decades, the ornate spire of Trinity Church towered over Lower Manhattan. It wasn’t until the late-1800s when technology and economic might converged to produce the first modern towers.
The city’s first cluster of tall buildings appeared around City Hall, as newspapers competed to see who could build the most grand headquarters. One of the more ambitious projects in this wave of development was the New York World Building (1890), which held the title as the tallest skyscraper in the world.
In 1908, the ante was upped further after the completion of the 47-storey headquarters of the Singer Sewing Machine Company and the 50-storey Metropolitan Life Tower. NYC was slower than its rival, Chicago, in adopting skeleton-frame construction techniques, but once that door was open, height records were eclipsed every few years.
FROM ’20S TO ZERO
The roaring ’20s ushered in a new age of skyscrapers in New York City that only picked up steam heading into the 1930s. Not only was the economy booming, but the United States had recently became one of the first countries in the world to have a majority-urban population. Manhattan was a magnet for growth, and its extreme population density left only one direction to grow: skyward.
A number of iconic landmarks were constructed in this era, including the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings.
As the chart above clearly illustrates, the onset of the Great Depression had a pronounced cooling effect on construction in New York City. For more than a decade, no new 150m+ towers were added to the city’s skyline.
NEW YORK TODAY
The world has changed a lot since the ribbon was cut in front of the Empire State Building. Flagship skyscrapers have grown taller than we ever could’ve imagined, and relentless development has completely transformed places like Dubai and Shenzhen. Even so, New York City is still home to more 100m+ buildings than any other city on Earth.
It’s also worth mentioning that New York City found itself back in the top 10 tallest buildings list after the completion of One World Trade Center in 2014.
WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS
New York City’s skyline is packed with recognizable towers, but for a long time, few new projects challenged the vertical supremacy of buildings like MetLife or Empire State. Today – thanks to engineering innovations and acquisition of “air rights” on neighboring plots – the skyline is undergoing a dramatic transformation.
Powered by a healthy ultra-high-end real estate market, slender skyscrapers are rising above the skyline.
This style of building uses a small land footprint so effectively, that projects are springing up around the city. According to Skyscraper Center, there are 86 skyscrapers under construction or planned, with 10 projects set to surpass the height of the Chrysler Building.
While this level of construction is dwarfed by activity in fast-growing metropolises in China, this new generation of high-visibility towers is a sign that the Big Apple is still a strong draw for the world’s ultra-wealthy.
- The Establishment Must Undermine Alternative Economists As Crisis Unfolds
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
There is a notion within the mainstream media that certain economic indicators are unassailable; they never stop being reliable. The way they look at and report on the system is rather outdated and extremely limited in scope; showcasing and cherry picking only net-positive statistics, even if those stats don’t represent reality. The result is a kind of holographic view of the financial structure; a mirage of a healthy and vibrant foundation that simply does not exist.
This fraudulent view appeals to the masses for a time because it provides fuel for false hopes. In economics, an analyst must always account for two major factors: the hard math and human psychology. These factors tend to conflict during times when a financial bubble is present, and they tend to converge when such bubbles implode. One must never underestimate the power of public psychology, though. Even when the math is screaming that danger is present in the system, a naive and misinformed populace (coupled with central bank manipulation) can keep a dead economy in a state of profane reanimation for much longer than seems logically possible.
This magic show only lasts for so long, however, and eventually the truth strikes those with blind faith in the machine brutally and without mercy.
On the financial side of the great farce, most of the “positive” signs we see are purely debt driven. Cheap debt and credit liquidity has kept zombie banks alive for years beyond their expiration date, but it has also trickled down into main street, where we see extensive commercial retail development and a spike in employment opportunities. Of course, the box stores and construction are being undertaken by developers deep in the red, and most of the debt will not be paid off for years, if at all.
The rise in job creation extends from the retail bubble, where low wage service jobs are available in abundance, yet higher wage jobs that support families are dwindling. This explains why companies looking to fill vacant employee positions are having such a hard time. Over 95 million working-age people are unemployed in the U.S. but are not counted as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Millions of people who find it more profitable to stay home and collect welfare benefits than slave away in a McDonald’s or a Walmart.
The stock market itself is essentially another debt bubble, driven by corporate stock buybacks that have been funded for years by overnight loans from the Federal Reserve as well as near zero interest rates. As interest rates rise even moderately, the debt becomes unserviceable, and thus, the bull market begins to fizzle and stocks begin to plunge.
As I have covered often over the years, that which we see in the mainstream version of economic events is rarely, if ever, supported by concrete evidence. The establishment media acts not as an information source, but as a tool for encouraging public ignorance which can then be exploited to feed the broken economy for just a little while longer. I suspect some of these gatekeepers even pride themselves as “liars with a noble purpose;” the purpose being to mold perception of the system and thereby extend the life of the system. They see themselves as guardians — I see them as saboteurs.
While many in the public do not make it their ambition to become experts on the mechanics of the economy, people still tend to sense instinctively when something is broken within the fiscal environment. They may not know why there is a problem, but absurd optimism can only levitate them above the muck for so long.
Recent events are beginning to reveal the extent of the fantasy. These are issues that alternative analysts have been warning about for the better part of the past decade, but only now in the past year is this information being taken seriously.
I have seen a propaganda meme flooding onto discussion boards recently in reference to alternative economists, and it goes a little something like this:
“Alternative economists are doom and gloomers that have been wrong for 10 years, but a broken clock is still right twice a day…”
I find this disinfo argument somewhat hilarious because of the extraordinary level of dishonesty inherent in it, but I also find it revealing in a way.
First, let’s be clear, if alternative economists had only been stating in some broad and unspecific way that “someday” there would be a disaster caused by an undefined “something”, then there might be basis for the argument above. This is not the case. In fact, many of us have been very specific in our predictions, in terms of how the ongoing economic downturn would develop and what catalysts would trigger the next phase of the crash.
For my part, I outlined in 2015 that the Federal Reserve would undertake a policy of interest rates hikes and fiscal tightening, and that they would pursue this action until markets, long supported by cheap debt, finally broke under the pressure. Months before Trump’s election I stated that Donald Trump would in fact be president and that the Fed would accelerate tightening during his administration. At the beginning of this year I predicted that Fed tightening would result in massive stock market reversal (worse than the 2008 crash) in 2018. In September I refined the timing of this crash to begin in the final quarter of 2018.
These are not vaporous or inconclusive statements, these are very direct predictions. And, other economists in the liberty movement have similar analysis.
The fact is, alternative economists have been RIGHT for the past 10 years and have been far ahead of the mainstream in terms of predicting fiscal trends based on real data. As I have always said, economic collapse is a process, not an event. It’s something that happens in stages or phases over time, not something that occurs overnight or in the span of a few days. People who think that a national or global disaster is a sudden and inexplicable affair watch far too much television. They also don’t understand that the historic moments of “crisis” we read about in books are the culmination of years of decline.
Most, if not all, crashes are preceded by YEARS of warning signs that should have been heeded at the time but were mostly ignored.
Throughout the 1920s, Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises predicted the collapse of the German Mark as well as the stock market crash of 1929. In 1931, after the initial crash, he also predicted that central bank interventions through interest rate increases and other measures would prolong the disaster rather than end it. Mises saw the danger well in advance, but he was ignored until it was too late. His writings from this time period can be studied in a published collection titled ‘The Causes Of Economic Crisis‘.
Was Mises a “broken clock” that just happened to be right after years of incorrect predictions? Looking back on the complexity of the events of that era and how Mises was able to correctly outline how they would play out years ahead of time, this argument is clearly nonsense.
Before the credit crash of 2008, there were multiple alternative economists warning about the dangers of the derivatives bubble and the coinciding mortgage debt bubble. Some of them many years before the negative effects became visible in stock markets. All of them were laughed at or ignored right up until the crash, and even after it became obvious that these analysts were correct in their predictions, the mainstream still tried to snub them.
As is often the case, mainstream gatekeepers in economics promote false data as a means to “mold” public perception, thus aiding central banks and governments in inflating financial bubbles and perpetuating destructive fiscal practices. But once the fantasy comes tumbling down, they still seek to remain relevant.
They deflect blame by claiming “they had always seen the crisis coming”, or that “no one saw it coming”.
They often claim they were there, “on the front lines,” fighting to educate the masses. And sometimes this is true — the mainstream does tend to shift its rhetoric mere weeks or months before the crash happens. They were never on the front lines. They didn’t see the train wreck coming. They are Johnny-come-lately coattail riding weasels that are seeking to protect their legacies rather than protect the populace from harm.
These people downplay the work of far better men and women in the alternative field as a means to elevate themselves and their fragile reputations.
I believe the “broken clock” narrative is a coordinated disinformation campaign; an attack on analysts who, like Ludwig von Mises, have been accurately predicting the process of collapse for years. It is designed to inoculate the public to the alternative media just before they are about to be proven correct beyond a doubt. In other words, someone knows that the ongoing collapse is becoming more obvious to the public and that, by extension, alternative economists are about to gain more attention.
We can’t have that, now, can we?
If alternative economist predictions receive the attention they deserve, the risk for the establishment is that some of our solutions might be taken seriously as well. Solutions like the concept of decentralization and localization of production, a gold backed currency system, the imprisonment of the banking elites that caused the crash in the first place, etc.
When all is said and done, mainstream gatekeepers hope that the alternative media and our work will be forgotten as “doomsday ramblings;” that one time we got lucky, but that we should be dismissed otherwise. The people who work diligently in the alternative field are meant to be discouraged — to give up. We are supposed to feel like modern day Cassandras, cursed prophets that offer correct predictions of the future that no one listens to. We are supposed to throw our hands up in the air and quit.
I don’t see this 4th Gen warfare tactic as being very successful though. The establishment banks and the economists that pander to them have burned up all their goodwill and social capital. They have been wrong so much and so often that the public is looking elsewhere for their information. This has led to the explosion of interest in alternative economic analysis that is occurring today.
The broken clock lie tells me two things:
One, it tells me that the system is about to fail to the point that it can no longer be covered up or denied.
Two, it tells me that the establishment is worried about the amount of influence the alternative media will have as the crisis unfolds.
For the past 10 years we have been correct in our analysis, and the danger for the elites is that the wider public might find out.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
- As 'Caravan' Crosses Mexico, Trump's 'Temporary' Tent City For Migrant Kids Balloons In Size
A new report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shows President Trump’s temporary tent city for unaccompanied alien children (UAC) at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Tornillo, Texas Land Port of Entry (LPOE) has dramatically expanded its capabilities over the last several months.
Tornillo’s tent city was designed to temporarily house 450 children under the supervision of HHS in June, when Trump’s zero-tolerance policy separated over 2,500 migrant children from their parents.
Now, the temporary shelter has 3,800 beds for UACs between ages 13 and 17, 1,400 of those beds are on special reverse status.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and HHS said the expansion of the facility was imperative due to the influx of immigrant children arriving at the Mexico-US border without family members.
@HHSGov spox Mark Webber talks about how Tornillo is prepared to shelter 3800 children. Currently has 1600. pic.twitter.com/KJ1BPW1phA
— Julia E. Ainsley (@JuliaEAinsley) October 12, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The official in charge of Tornillo’s facility told NBC on Friday, “there is no question whatsoever,” that the rise in migrant children being detained by the CBP is due to the “extra precautions” the Trump admin is now preparing to match children with family members, including their biological parents, if possible.
The official said that as of Oct. 12th, 826 out of the 1,500 children in Tornillo were awaiting background checks before they could be transferred to family members or homes within the US.
Children at Tornillo stay an average of 59 days, up from roughly 30 days under the Obama administration, according to HHS.
Federal officials have been strict with journalists on tours of the facility; there are no cameras, recorders, and or cell phones allowed inside.
The official notes that children have access to legal services, medical care, outside activities, cable television, and religious services.
DHS and HHS released new footage last week showing a rare glimpse inside the Tornillo facility:
Here are journalists on the outer perimeter of the facility:
Back in #tornillo TX with @mattgutmanABC touring HHS Unaccompainied children immigrant facility. First tour since July. #immigration #@ABCWorldNews pic.twitter.com/Q4kQD4TI8X
— Jim Scholz (@ABCscholz) October 12, 2018
Video from outside Tornillo. No cameras were allowed inside. pic.twitter.com/DRIZ7XJVV3
— Julia E. Ainsley (@JuliaEAinsley) October 12, 2018
NBC KTSM spoke with a 16-year-old female from within the facility on a recent tour; she said she spent several months in a shelter in Miami and has been in Tornillo for about a month.
She is praying that she will be released to family members in Texas.
The girl said her parents live in Guatemala, and she made the decision to travel to America for a better life and education. NBC KTSM said there was sadness in her eyes when asked if she would return to her native country.
ACLU lawyers have argued against separating families at the Mexico-US border and sending migrant children into government-run camps.
Child welfare groups warn that the facility is not open to state inspection because it resides on federal land. The Tornillo official said the facility exceeds state standards when it comes to ratios for childcare, medical and mental health workers.
Trump’s migrant camp for kids is expanding in size but seems to be absent from news flow, until now. With the US midterm elections drawing closer, and thousands of migrants ‘caravanning’ across Mexico on route for the US border, the mainstream media could turn the Tornillo tent city into the next news cycle’s “crisis” as bomb-the-Democrats-gate fades from the headlines.
- Here Comes The Housing Bust "Reverse Wealth Effect" – Australia Edition
Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,
For the past few years, homeowners just about everywhere have been able to finesse life’s problems by thinking “at least my house is going up.” This home equity accretion allowed them to buy stuff on credit, safe in the knowledge that even as they maxed out yet another credit card their net worth continued to rise. They felt smart and confident, in other words, and so continued to behave in ways that the modern world defines as normal and natural.
But now that’s ending. Home prices have stopped rising in many places and in a few canaries in the financial coal mine have begun to plunge. Here’s what “plunge” means for Australians:
House prices ‘falling by over $1,000 a week’ in Sydney and Melbourne, Deloitte says
The boom time is over and we’re now officially experiencing the “house price fall we had to have”, according to Deloitte Access Economics’s latest business outlook.
It has found what many had been predicting: prices are dipping as interest rates are rising, with our biggest cities feeling the winds of change most keenly.
“Our house prices here in Australia had streaked past anything sensible by way of valuation,” said Deloitte partner Chris Richardson.
“Now, finally gravity has caught up with that stupidity and prices are falling.
“In Sydney and Melbourne, housing prices are falling by over $1,000 a week.”
Prices had surged across the country over the past five years as historically low interest rates have driven Australians to load up on debt, while investors had also cashed in.
Not if, but by how much
Housing forecasts have gone from disagreement over whether home prices will fall to debates about how much they’ll decline.
“There are more falls to come, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, because the prices there got silliest and you’re seeing a range of pressures on it.”
Mr Richardson names three particular factors putting downward pressure on prices.
1. Banks are raising interest rates: “Even though the Reserve Bank has done nothing.”
2. Banks have become cautious: “You’ve seen the banks being more careful with the loans they’re giving. Those loans are slower and smaller than they used to be.”
3. Less money from overseas: “Foreign buyers are a bit more cautious.”
The Deloitte report reflects recent data from Thomson Reuters, which shows changes in the rate of residential property price growth, year-on-year.
A falling line in this chart doesn’t necessarily mean prices are dropping — simply the rate of growth is slowing — but if it drops below zero then prices are technically falling.
The above chart shows that the UK — which had an epic housing boom along with, not coincidentally, one of the world’s most extreme consumer credit bubbles — now has falling home prices. Australia just tipped into negative territory with Canada right on the cusp.
In each country, a reverse wealth effect is kicking in. Homeowners are seeing their home equity – aka their net worth – stop growing and in some cases drop by shocking amounts. In Australia it’s $1,000 a week, which is enough to darken the mood of pretty much anyone not in the 1%. A consumer with a dark mood is an unenthusiastic shopper because new debt accelerates the decline in net worth.
As home prices fall, so therefore does “discretionary” spending. Australians will continue to eat and to air condition their bedrooms, but they’ll cut way back on vacations, new cars, etc. And the debt-based part of the economy will suffer. This will cause stock prices to fall, knocking another leg out from under the average citizen’s net worth and making them even less likely to splurge. And so on.
Credit-bubble capitalism depends on mood, which makes it fragile. That fragility is about to be on full display pretty much everywhere.
- AI-Generated Portrait Sells For $432,500 At Auction, Blowing Away All Estimates
A portrait created by an artificial intelligence brought in $432,500 at Christie’s in New York on Thursday in what was the first piece of computer-generated artwork for sale by a major auction house.
It’s signed by the artist: min G max D Ex[log(D(x))] + Ez[log(1-D(G(z)))], which was created by Paris-based collective, Obvious Art, using an algorithm known as a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN).
The print on canvas, titled “Edmond de Belamy, from La Famille de Belamy,” depicts a blurry and unfinished image of a man. Displayed in a gilded wooden frame, it was estimated to fetch $7,000 to $10,000 and offered as the final lot at Christie’s auction of prints and multiples. –Bloomberg
“We fed the system with a data set of 15,000 portraits painted between the 14th century to the 20th,” said collective member Hugo Caselles-Dupre.
A bidding war erupted over Edmond, with five prospective buyers going back and forth for around seven minutes. Finally, an anonymous phone buyer prevailed according to Christie’s spokeswoman Jennifer Cuminale.
“It is an exciting moment and our hope is that the spotlight on this sale will bring forward the amazing work that our predecessors and colleagues have been producing,” reads a statement from the collective. “We are grateful to Christie’s for opening up this dialogue in the art community and honored to have been a part of this global conversation about the impact of this new technology in the creation of art.”
You can read about Obvious Art’s AI work here.
- Paul Craig Roberts On The Triumph Of Evil
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
The murder of Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey is unprecedented in its audacity. The response from Washington and the Canadian government is to sell more weapons to Saudi Arabia, weapons that are being used by the Saudis in their destruction of the Yemeni population. The Russian response, if the report I saw was not fake news, is to sell the Saudis the S-400 air defense system.
What we can conclude from this is that armament profits take precedence over murder and genocide.
Genocide is what is going on in Yemen. I heard a report today on NPR that Yemeni are dying from starvation and from a cholera epidemic that has resulted from the Saudi destruction of the infrastructure in Yemen. The aid worker giving the report was obviously sincere and upset, but had difficulty connecting the high death rate to the Washington-sponsored war, blaming instead a 20% devaluation of the Yemen currency that raised food prices out of the reach of most Yemeni. She said that the solution to the crisis was to stabilize the currency!
It is difficult to understand why in the Western media and among Western politicians there is so much demonization of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Russia. It is not these demonized countries that are murdering people in their embassies, conducting wars of aggression (war crimes under the Nuremburg Standard), and embargoing food and medical supplies to the populations that are being bombed. These crimes are being done by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States and its NATO vassals.
Obviously, the Yemeni, like the Palestinians, don’t count. Their slaughter doesn’t cause a moral ripple in the West.
Putin might be giving Washington tit for tat by horning in on Washington’s armaments customers, but the decision to sell the Saudis the S-400 is a strategic blunder. Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of the war against Syria, in whose defense Russian lives and treasure have been spent. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Iran. Iran is an ally of Russia in the defense of Syria, and a country whose stability is essential to Russia’s stability. Perhaps even more important, the minute the Saudis get their hands on the S-400 they will hand it over to Washington, and experts will figure out how to defeat it, thus negating Russia’s investment in the weapon and its advantage. The decision to sell the S-400 to the Saudis convinces Washington that Putin and his government are clueless, babes in the woods to be easily run over.
In my opinion, the worst aspect of the S-400 sale is that it erases the moral edge that Putin has gained for Russia over the murderous and ever-threatening West. Now we have Russia putting profits above the Russian government’s professed respect for the rule of law and moral behavior.
An even more immoral and irresponsible development is President Trump’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty. The only reason for Trump’s Zionist Neoconservative National Security Advisor to orchestrate this withdrawal is to threaten Russia. Intermediate range missiles cannot reach the US. Russian ones could reach Europe, and US ones placed in Europe on Russia’s border can comprise a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia that has no warning and is indefensible.
President Putin has complained for years, and warned of the consequences, of Washington establishing ABM missile sites in Poland and Romania under cover that their purpose is to protect Europe from Iranian missile attack. Putin has pointed out repeatedly that these missile sites can easily, without anyone knowing, be converted into a nuclear cruise missile attack posture against Russia. Yet, the crazed US National Security Advisor claims, illogically, that it is the Russians, who have nothing to gain from violating the treaty, who are cheating.
Europe has no capability whatsoever of being a military threat to Russia except as launching posts for Washington. If it were not for Washington’s aggression toward Russia, Europe would face no Russian threat.
The reason President Reagan negotiated the INF Treaty with Gorbachev was to reduce the Soviet perception of the US as a threat. Reagan wanted the end of the Cold War and nuclear disarmament. Reagan hated nuclear weapons. By Reagan’s time in office, no one with any intelligence any longer believed that the Red Army intended to overrun Europe. The problem was different. The problem was to get rid of nuclear weapons that are capable, if used, of winning no war but of destroying life on planet Earth. Reagan understood this completely.
Unfortunately, this understanding has been lost in Washington.
If the INF Treaty is abandoned, it is impossible for Russia to tolerate any missile bases near its borders as these bases could be first-strike nuclear weapons against which Russia has no defense. The European countries sufficiently stupid to host these bases will be on a hair-trigger with the Russian military. Just one false signal, and nuclear war begins.
Trump’s intention to normalize relations with Russia has been defeated by CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, Justice Department Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, the Democratic Party, the US liberal/progressive/left, and the presstitute media—CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Fox News, BBC, Washington Post, etc.
We will all die, because the American Establishment lied through its teeth nonstop.
We can conclude from the acceptance of Saudi crimes and Western indifference to Washington’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty that morality takes a back seat to material interest. We can also conclude that evil has achieved dominance over good, with the consequences that avarice and lawlessness will escalate their destruction of truth, peoples, and life on earth.
- Bay Area Expats Are Driving Up Home Prices From Boise To Reno
In the not-too-distant future, it’s not improbable that low-wage laborers in San Francisco will be replaced by ubiquitous machines (the city is already home to the first restaurant run by a robot). And not just fast food workers, either – the jobs of teachers, fire fighters and law enforcement will all be assumed by robots, as NorCal’s prohibitively high cost of living and astronomical home prices spark a mass exodus of families earning less than $250,000 a year.
While this scenario might seem like an exaggeration (and it very well might be), we’ve paid close attention to the flight of Californians who are abandoning the Bay Area for all of the reasons mentioned above, as well as what Peter Thiel (himself a Bay Area emigre) once described as a political “monoculture” that has made California inhospitable for conservatives. And as if circumstances weren’t already dire enough for would-be homeowners (even miles away from San Francisco, relatively modest homes still sell for upwards of $2 million), a report published earlier this year by realtor.com illustrated how a lapse in new home construction has led to a serious imbalance between home supply and the increasing demand of the state’s ever-growing population, leading to a cavernous supply gap.
With this in mind, it shouldn’t be surprising that Californians comprise a majority of the residents moving into other states in the American West – even states like Idaho where the culture is very different from the liberal Bay Area. This week, Bloomberg published a story about how Californians constitute an increasing share of out-of-state homebuyers in small cities like Boise, Phoenix and Reno, which are significantly more affordable than California, and offer some semblance of the walkable urban environment that nesting millennials crave.
As Californians sell their homes in the Bay Area in search of roomier, cheaper locales, they’re bringing the curse of surging property prices with them. In fact, the influx of Californians is the primary factor leading to some of the largest yoy price increases in the country, as Bloomberg explains:
About 29 percent of the Idaho capital’s home-listing views are from Californians, according to Realtor.com. Reno and Prescott, Ariz., also were popular. These housing markets are soaring while much of the rest of the country cools. In Nevada, where Californians make up the largest share of arrivals, prices jumped 13 percent in August, the biggest increase for any state, according to CoreLogic Inc. data. It was followed closely by Idaho, with a 12 percent gain.
Even in places like deep-red Idaho, these transplants are beginning to remake the terrain in their own image, as food co-ops and Women’s Marches starting to populate the landscape. Businesses are rushing to Boise to meet every desire of the newly arrived Cali transplants.
D’Agostino, the Bay Area transplant, isn’t ashamed of her progressive views and is finding her place: at the natural foods co-op downtown, the Boise’s Women’s March last year, and with the volunteer group she founded to collect unused food for the needy. But it was also good to get out of her comfort zone, she says. “I can’t remember a time when it’s ever been this divided, so the fact that I can have some interaction with people who might not have exactly the same beliefs as me, that’s fine,” she says. “As long as we can respect each other.”
It’s not new for politics to factor into moving decisions—it’s just that in the age of Trump, tensions get magnified. “What’s different now is how far apart the parties are ideologically,” says Matt Lassiter, a professor of history at the University of Michigan.
Politics aside, businesses are rushing into Boise to fill every West Coast craving. In nearby Eagle, the new Renovare gated community is selling 1,900- to 4,000-square-foot homes with floor-to-ceiling glass and “wine walls” that start at $650,000—a bargain by California standards, says sales agent Nik Buich. About half of buyers are from out of state, he says.
One couple even opened a “boutique taqueria” and another transplant is preparing to start a blog about his experience moving to Idaho.
Julie and John Cuevas left Southern California a year ago to open Madre, a “boutique taqueria” in Boise that would make many of their fellow transplants feel at home. It’s more fusion than typical Mexican fare, with taco fillings including kimchi short rib and the popular “Idaho spud & chorizo.” It would have cost them three times as much to open a restaurant in California, says John, a former chef at a Beverly Hills hotel.
John Del Rio, a real estate agent sporting a beard, baseball cap, and sunglasses, just registered moving2idaho.com, where he’s planning to blog about all the things that make his new home great. He left Northern California two years ago with his wife in search of a place with less crime, lighter regulation, and more open space. Del Rio, a conservative with a libertarian bent, is reassured to see average people walking through Walmart with handguns in their holsters. In Idaho, he says, “nobody even flinches.”
In Boise alone, Californians made up 85% of new arrivals, and have driven home prices up nearly 20% in the span of a year. One realtor described the attitude of transplants as like “they’re playing with monopoly money.”
Nestled against the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Boise (pop. 227,000) has drawn families for decades to its open spaces and short commutes. It’s been particularly attractive to Californians, who accounted for 85 percent of net domestic immigration to Idaho, according to Realtor.com’s analysis of 2016 Census data. While it has always prided itself on being welcoming, skyrocketing housing costs fueled by the influx is testing residents’ patience. In his state of the city speech last month, Mayor David Bieter outlined steps to keep housing affordable and asked Boise to stay friendly: “Call it Boise kind, our kindness manifesto,” he said.
It’s especially easy for buyers who have sold properties in the Golden State to push up prices in relatively cheap places because they feel like they’re playing with Monopoly money, Kelman says. The median existing-home price in Boise’s home of Ada County was $299,950 last month—up almost 18 percent from a year earlier, but still about half California’s. The influx is great news for people who already own homes in the area, says Danielle Hale, chief economist for Realtor.com. “But if you’re a local aspiring to homeownership, it feels very much that Californians are bringing high prices with them.”
And now that Trump’s tax reform package has been implemented, it’s only a matter of time before a whole new batch of Californian home owners, unwilling to forego their SALT tax writeoffs, start looking for greener pastures in low-cost red states.
- When Will Obama Aides Come Clean About U.S.-Saudi War Crimes?"
Authored by Sarah Lazare via InTheseTimes.com,
Now that Saudi Arabia has become a P.R. liability, Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes have quietly condemned the war in Yemen. But when they had the power to stop it, they were complicit…
It took the apparent murder and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi for the violence of the Saudi monarchy to finally register with the U.S. media and political elite. Since March 2015, the United States, Saudi Arabia and other allies have waged a war on Yemen that has killed tens of thousands of people, pushed the poorest country in the Middle East to the brink of famine and unleashed a devastating cholera outbreak. On behalf of its Saudi partner, the United States has shipped arms, refueled bomber jets, deployed troops and provided political cover—all without a congressional vote, serious political debate or meaningful media coverage.
Recently, the dogged work of activists and the war’s undeniable brutality have led to greater scrutiny from some in Congress. Also among the war’s new critics are former high-ranking Obama aides, including former UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, both of whom got in line behind the U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen and defended the intervention. As U.S. participation in Saudi war crimes becomes a P.R. liability for those who built their personal brands on the Obama administration’s supposed moral authority, former aides’ criticisms force us to grapple with what constitutes atonement for complicity in mass killing—and how to distinguish true accountability from a hollow exercise in image rehabilitation.
On September 26, Power tweeted her support for a bill introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to invoke the War Powers Resolution and end U.S. backing of the Saudi-led war.
Noting the “horrific, pointless bloodshed,” she acknowledged “we in the Obama admin should have cut off aid.” On October 4, Rhodes called the War Powers Resolution “a much-needed check on a humanitarian and strategic catastrophe in Yemen.”
While any acknowledgement of wrongdoing, no matter how understated, is better than nothing, their half-hearted attempts demand a more thoughtful examination of what real public atonement—and justice—should look like when one admits to complicity in an unjust war of aggression.
What we do know is that, when Power in her role as a UN ambassador actually had the power to help stop the war on Yemen, by publicly breaking with her boss and encouraging meaningful action at the United Nations, she did nothing. Instead she embraced a policy of silence—and shielded the U.S.-Saudi coalition from meaningful international scrutiny as it dropped bombs on homes, schools, hospitals and funerals.
Rhodes, for his part, as deputy national security advisor, did not publicly dissent from Obama’s decision to send the United States into the war. Rhodes acknowledged his culpability in a revisionist October 12 piece for The Atlantic, which downplayed the Obama administration’s direct responsibility for atrocities. He wrote of the Yemen war, “Looking back, I wonder what we might have done differently, particularly if we’d somehow known that Obama was going to be succeeded by a President Trump.” In reality, the horrors of the war were fully underway during the Obama administration.
In an eyebrow-raising tweet published October 21, Rhodes claimed that the Obama administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia grew “chilly.” In reality, throughout his presidency Obama offered the kingdom more than $115 billion in weapons, as well as military equipment and training, and at the end of his tenure, he collaborated with Saudi Arabia on an aggressive war that is still ongoing.
Understated and self-serving admissions by Power and Rhodes demand an examination of what real accountability should look like when one is complicit in unjust war. Neither’s critique included an exhaustive account of their wrongdoing or a robust plan to make things right. Power and Rhodes are following the well-trod path in which lawmakers and White House officials support U.S. wars of aggression only to admit, years later and with little personal consequence, that they made a mistake. From Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Hillary Clinton, quietly acknowledging that the Iraq War was a bad idea has become a political rite of passage. These penitents fail to mention that their actions (or lack thereof) contributed to the deaths of more than a million Iraqi people. And the media allows them to simply issue a vague mea culpa and move on.
Politicians and officials likely make the calculus that it’s less politically risky to support bipartisan wars at the time, even if it means having to apologize for it later. (Of course, following the polls is not always a winning strategy over the long run, as Clinton learned when she lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential primary, likely due to her support for the Iraq War.)
Power and Rhodes’ support for the War Powers Resolution is one step toward rectifying the harm they have done. Obama, meanwhile, remains silent. But the architects of war must not be allowed to determine the parameters of their own accountability. The question remains: What would a real public apology for mass murder entail? Vowing to leave public life, dedicating one’s remaining days to ending the war and repairing the damage? Who should decide what reparations mean? Certainly, Yemenis who have been harmed, including those who were children when Obama led the United States into the war in 2015 and must now grow up with a decimated education and medical system, should be at the forefront.
Nothing is stopping Power and Rhodes from giving a full and honest account of who was responsible for advocating, overseeing and covering up the horrors of the Yemen War, starting with themselves. This would provide useful information about how U.S. institutions function, whose interests were served at the expense of the Yemeni people, who is undeserving of re-election and political power, and what keeps the war machine whirring. It would build political pressure to finally end the war, far more than a handful of muted tweets and articles ever could.
But that’s not likely to happen. Far more likely is that former aides will issue vague regrets without providing any real inventory of their own roles, while raking in undisclosed – and presumably high – fees for lectures on human rights and foreign policy. Instead of buying into this ex post facto rebranding, it’s up to all of us to make the launching of unjust wars of aggression politically nuclear – and to ensure that no one can get away with shrugging off the killing of tens of thousands of people as an unfortunate, but forgivable, “mistake.”
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...